Jon Stewart’s misguided Rally to Restore Sanity

Share This Article

While I regularly watch The Daily Show and think its political satire is second to none, the Rally to Restore Sanity that will be held on the Mall in Washington D.C. tomorrow is problematic on many levels. Of all the critiques I’ve seen, Daniel Denvir over at Alternet best captured my sentiments:

When he announced the rally, Jon Stewart made a concerted effort to appear politically unaligned, screening clips that imply an equivalence between the wacky right and the wacky left. As Jon Stewart has it, the problem is “loud folks” and a tone of political debate that has become untempered: too many crazies yelling and screaming, comparing people they don’t like to Hitler.

But yelling is not just a matter of loud noise expelled through the human throat. It matters what’s being yelled. When it comes to the Republican Party — and Democratic fellow travelers — they are shouting in favor of corporate exploitation and war.

The Tea Party far right leans on made-up things, also known as lies — “ground zero” Mosque, illegal immigrants purposely causing highway accidents, death panels killing grandma — to win political power. The left has a different problem. We could have used a little more hysteria in recent years, as Wall Street robbed Main Street and the most powerful military on earth invaded multiple countries. Instead, a real anti-war movement never materialized to challenge one of this nation’s most violent presidencies. The people “who have shit to do” that you cited as your fan base, Jon Stewart, should have been out in the streets protesting and putting our 1960s radical parents to shame. But we’ve got “shit to do.” On the Internet, I suppose.

Rather than writing off Code Pink as crazies, which is unfair, Stewart would have been much more constructive if he had acknowledged that they are right to be upset with the ongoing wars that have cost so many lives, but challenged their tactics.

I agree that screaming “war criminal” at government officials isn’t a wise approach strategically and will not likely draw many new people into the peace movement. But that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as soon as possible.

Moreover, I was very disappointed when Stewart made the argument that most Americans are legitimately just too busy to protest. It really reminded me of the folks who think they are clever and original when they tell demonstrators to “get a real job.”

The truth of the matter is that activists are often some of the hardest working people, participating in protests and other forms of political action on top of their day jobs and family obligations, because they believe it important to speak out and challenge power when it is abused. That sentiment and the true dedication of so many activists to building a better world themselves should be held up as a model for what is necessary to have a healthy democracy, not dismissed and insulted as a waste of time.

12 comments

I finally decided to take you out of my Google Reader settings. I very much appreciated reading about protests around the world. What I don’t want to read anymore are your somewhat grandiose and judgmental ideas about what is really nonviolence and what is not. It comes across as a little too pompous and self-righteous for my tastes. Thank you for what you have provided, and so long.

I’m really sorry to hear that Oscar. Not surprisingly, I don’t feel that I’m being grandiose and judgmental or pompous and self-righteous. I really try to be constructive in my criticism. While I’m sure I fail at times, I hope that this site can be a forum for discussion about nonviolence and about what are the most creative and effective ways for activists to promote their causes. And that means being critical at times and supportive in others.

It’d be nice rather than leaving the site for you to share why you disagree with things that we write, as it may generate good discussion and get us to think about things in a different way. Even though you say you won’t have us in your Reader, I hope you’ll still check us out and contribute your thoughts from time to time.

I’m not sure why Stewart’s claim that “most Americans are legitimately too busy to protest” is problematic. I think it a fair assertion considering how much people have to work and what the cost of a standard life is in America.

Though I do find it problematic that playing the “middle ground” often amounts to false equations between people on the left and people on the right (devoid of any real discussion about the merits of their arguments), I do think it necessary to remain critical of tactis such as the ones employed by Code Pink, which can easily be compared to tea party shenanigans. To third party observes, it can be hard to see a difference based solely on political arguments.

At the core of this creative project is a call to dialogue, and an attempt to bring people back into discussion who have felt alienated by the intense polarization between the fashionable “sides” that people crystalize on. Personally, I’d be slightly more charitable in my interpretation of the organizers’ intentions.

As for Oscar Romero above, it’s sad to see someone who clearly cares about nonviolence go. Perhaps you could consider expressing your thoughts more fully? As I understand it, this space is a forum for us all to flesh things out and, though opinionated, it’s hard to say that the moderators of this site are “pompous” and “self-righteous.” If anything, their comments and analyses lead to a deepening of the discussion about what nonviolence is and can be. I should hope that your voice remains a part of this and contributes to our collective advancement.

Eric, I l am a real fan Waging Nonviolence. But, perhaps not as strongly as Oscar, I disagree with you about this rally.I think the goals of the Rally to Restore Sanity were to 1) mock Glenn Beck and his “Tea Party,” 2) call-out the mainstream media on both sides, as he effectively did during the rally, 3) show the nation and the world that conservatives can come out in huge numbers, that we exist, and 4) articulate to the GOP that we’re tired of the fear tactics. The rally succeeded, I believe, in each of those goals.

Now, this rally in and of itself probably won’t change our politics, or the upcoming elections, and I don’t think that was the intention. But protest in and of itself, like your friend Daniel Denvier alludes to, is not necessarily the best or only option for U.S. citizens. Yes, it is a dramatic tactic that signals to leaders that people are aware and mobilizing. And, actually if you look at effective movements in the past century, including during the women’s movement, anti-war movement, and civil rights movement, many of them used protests which incorporated humor, entertainment, song, group activities such as those used at yesterday rally (I was there). In past successful movements, protests were not the single nor first tactic utilized. One doesn’t have to be angry and shout, as Daniel suggests, in order to get a message across. In fact, humor could be far more effective, and comedians and musicians have hd unifying affects in past movements.

I personally feel it is especially challenging for a developed democracy like the U.S. to mobilize people, and perhaps that’s why media pundits are kind of stepping in. Perhaps we are in a pathetic state of being led by comedians and enraged talk show hosts! But, both Stewart and Colbert touched a nerve among moderates, especially young people, in this country and around the world, and I for one appreciate their mocking of every side including our ineffective politicians and Beltway tactics in general.

There was a lot of truth (and truthiness) that both Stewart and Colbert pronounced yesterday. It forced those of us in the crowd to recognize our sad and confusing political and media systems. I hope that yesterday’s protest prompts people to recognize how manipulative the media has become, how fear is being used as an excuse to bring back the status quo, and how we can come together to force the people we elected to stand by their promises and stick up for what’s right.

One or two protests alone can’t change everything, but for sure I would rather be part of an activity that helps mock the party and media pundits that are a threat to reason and civilized discourse and exposes them for what they really are. And if this means I myself am being used as a tool for Comedy Central’s ratings, so be it! But my hunch is that the rally’s affect may not be fully realized yet. Perhaps out of those crowds, some young activists and organizers will emerge. And, in a global sense, like Obama’s election, I believe it helped show the world that there are rational people in our country and that we are seeing right through the whole fear thing, and we’re on to the other side’s game. There is no way that such a large gathering, and the spirit in which everyone participated, was a complete waste of time. That kind of cynicism is just what our opposition wants us to believe!

Thanks so much for your thoughtful response Vanessa. And in general I agree with what you said. I do think they accomplished the goals you elaborated, which are important. I especially think exposing the sensationalism and fear-mongering of the corporate media is needed, and no one does a better job than Stewart and Colbert. I also think humor is one of our most important and underused weapons in nonviolent conflict.

Where I disagree with the Rally was in how they lumped together activists on the right and left, and wrote them all off as crazy. Like I said, while I don’t agree with some of the tactics of Code Pink, for example, I do think there is more merit to their arguments than the average Tea Partier.

Also, by arguing that real Americans don’t protest because they have “shit to do,” implies that protesters are often there because they don’t have anything else to do, which I found insulting. Many activists that I know sacrifice much of their free time for their political work and sometimes their safety as well. I’m sure you’d agree and I just wish Stewart wouldn’t have framed the rally that way.

I, for one, think that there’s a level of wisdom informing this project that we commonly don’t consider. For instance, based on their experience on network TV, these guys have a much better sense of what this nation’s intellectual geography is. By utilizing an admittedly false polarity, what Stewart has done is create a comfort zone for people who ordinarily are too insecure and temperamental to engage political discourse. This is an inherently positive and nonviolent step in a communicative direction.

When I was involved in a project that walked across the country, I discovered many things about American politics that I would never have discovered in my political science classes. In many ways, this country is terribly out of touch with itself, and I think that the Left is just as responsible for this as the Right – if not more so, considering the high-level intellectual arguments that are often waged in the spirit of radical thought. Radical thought is only as useful as its accomplishment and ability to be shared.

For better of worse, most of America is not radical. In fact, most of America is politically illiterate and, as a result, completely alienated in “discussions” between the Left and the Right. I’m not saying Code Pink isn’t a group that stands for worthy causes. But I am saying it exists in a space that most of society does not share. That said, belligerent public behavior only pushes people further away. Hence, they become an easy target. Stewart is using them as a means to an end and, though it is an unfair coupling, his intention seems to be a noble one: “both sides have their goofiness and neither is fully representative of us all. Let’s talk.”

In short, since most of America does not share a political lexicon, they’re trying to strip people down so that a more fundamentally human and neighborly connection may become possible. Stewart and Colbert, with this rally, are doing what every single one of us should be trying to do when we meet someone one on one – that is, connect as people first, friends second, and then discuss artfully, conscious of how far envelopes can be pushed before communication collapses. Just because people don’t suddenly agree with one another after one conversation doesn’t mean that conversation was useless. If it leads to another conversation, it was a fundamental success.

Perhaps the best thing about the rally, which I couldn’t attend because I was getting married (though call – just kidding Anna), is that it brought people together in ways that both the left and the right sometimes fail to do.

If we see the Tea Party and Code Pink as opposite poles, which I belive they are, then we acknowledge what many in the press and many in the country already know. That the Tea Party factions can be as ignorant and dismissive of people and their ideas as those in many “leftist” groups, especially if they oppose the mantra of the movement.

And I believe that was the purpose of the rally, to show that polarity isn’t what makes this nation run well. But free and open dialog does. Which is what we’re missing in our policitcal discourse these days both in congress, in our cause groups and on the web.

I think the second great problem is that that we have politicians in office but no leaders. We have elected officials but no one with vision. We have democrates and republicans, who take equal amounts of money from their respective corporate constituents, but few who keep their word to the people they represent.

That, too, disengages the large middle from taking action. Plus they’re too busy trying to make ends meet and usually leave the protesting to the childless, young or retired, and/or somewhat educated and wealthy who can afford to take a few days off to go and protest. Everyone else is looking for a job or trying hard not to lose theirs in this economy.

Very well said David. I completely agree. My only thought to add to that would be that perhaps if the general public knew more about the history of protest and its importance in social change, they would make time for it, despite their crazy schedules.

I think one big problem in this country is the level of ignorance about the role that nonviolent action has played in securing every right and benefit we enjoy today, and that if that knowledge were more widespread, people would be more politically active. And we would all be better off for it.

Indeed. Nonviolence is the way and we have to remember how many people have given of themeselves, those who nonviolently protest and those who chose other ways to sacrifice, to ensure we can vote, write and think as freely as we do here in the US. Which granted is another debate always in the making….

Frankly, there are many political and corporate forces who use the media and their extreem wealth to sway public opinion, but I am not silent, neither are you and those who write for the blog, which makes me think things really aren’t as bad as those on the right left make them out to be.

That being said, What was it that dialog from Annie Hall (or was it Manhattan) about Nazi’s having a rally. One intellectual dinner party guest says something like,”oh, yes, there was a wonderful saterical piece on that in the New Yorker.” To which the Woody Allen character states something like, “yeah, humor is important but baseball bats to the head really get the point across with Nazis.”

I choose to live a life that supports nonviolent protest as the best, most sane way to bring social change. So I’m not going the baseball bat route but I’m not sure I’d say that nonviolence lead to every right we have today.

I don’t think any of us would be here (certainly I wouldn’t be here or my family or probaly a lot of non-blue eyed blond hair peoples) if we tried to stick flowers in the rifle muzzels of the SS.

But certainly nonviolent protest in its proportion to the evils that affronted us throughout the nation’s history has played a crucial role in wresting evil and creating positive social change. And I agree with you that certainly the King marches and movement of the 60’s showed the power of nonviolence.

So this said, I’ll sign off. The opinions expressed are my own (and probably the 60% moderate middle of Stewart/Colberts rally) that make up the electorate which didn’t vote last Tuesday.

Thanks again for writing David. I actually wrote the final chapter of my Masters thesis on how nonviolence was used and was often successful during WWII. There are really some amazing stories that most people haven’t heard of. If you’d want to check that out you can download it on my website. Here’s the link: http://ericstoner.net/thesis/.

It seems to me that Stewart et al is unfairly equating activism on the left that matters with crazies on the right that are the only activism the right even has because they usually never need to be active. Government and big business usually give the right whatever they want. Right wing activism, up til recently has just been whining (which has always worked).

Furthermore, it seems now that the Dems and Stewart just want the left to wave signs that say “Please Big Corporations, be nice” or “I’m not angry” or “War is only sometimes bad” or “Please money people, will you hire us?”, stuff like that. It’s like Goldman Sachs just needs to find their heart, like when the Grinch found his in that old Xmas cartoon.

Get Involved

If you have an interest in promoting stories of nonviolence, building this community and correcting the mainstream media’s misrepresentation of nonviolent action, please consider donating to Waging Nonviolence.